No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

The dillema remains fresco.

You can suspend the decision, but you still need to evaluate its merit on some basis when you eventually return to the decision.

If you evaluate its merit on the basis of the rejection of the dualist logic you've decried, you do so upon the basis of acceptance of nondualism.

That would mean accepting its validity based upon the acceptance of its validity.

Therefore there has to be more to the vetting than simply this question begging.

You can't use nondualist precepts to evaluate the nondualist precepts.

You can't justify the deviance from dualist logic in the evaluation of nondualist precepts through the use of nondualist precepts.

0 Replies

Craven - you've given another "intellectual argument".

You don't seem to "see" that this is the equivalent of trying to swim on the side of the pool.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

1. If you understand satori at the intellectual level, and find it lacking, ..fine. You are rejecting satori as a concept.

Quote:
No, I am not. I am rejecting your concept of nondualism.

Satori is nondualism experienced. If you reject nondualism you reject satori as a possibility.

Quote:

Fine, put words in my mouth.

Quote:

You are saying that "understanding" and "experiencing" nondualism is to see dualism for the "fiction it is".

An intellectual understanding of nondualism is obviously antithetical to dualism. Anyone can certainly understand nondualism as the concept it is and reject it as absurd or whatever. I think one can even have flashes of satori and reject them, as psychopathology etc. There may even be schizophrenics who have satoric flashes that are too overwhelming to be seen, accepted and understood for what they are.

I am saying at some level of understanding and knowing nondualism as a satoric experience (if it can be called an experience) any questions of accepting or rejecting are long past. They are no longer of any significance. (read fresco's last post).

Quote:

It's not fiction.

You do not know that.

In the intellectual understanding of nondualism as a concept there is the understanding that the ego/body/self is fictitious.

Quote:

And your use of these terms "understanding" and such are predicated on the notion that one would have to see it your way to qualify for having understood it.

0 Replies

Craven

....you may not want to go swimming of course, or you may "think" there is no water there....but ask if "you" think consistently about anything (this is a step down into the shallow end).....

0 Replies

JLN, since you, fresco, and twyvel have ruled out any logical discussion of non-dualism and discount the personal experience of "reality" of anyone who has not experienced the non-dual state, there is no place for me in this discussion.

So I will go back to my corner and continue quietly reading Susan Blackmore's book on Consciousness. I suspect that she denies the existence of the Self also. :wink:

0 Replies

Terry do not stay in the corner. These are difficult condepts because we have been taught to not understand. But we can listen and learn, absorb and hope.

Hey {{{{{{{{{{T}}}}}}}}}}}

0 Replies

Hi Joanne,

It might be useful if you expanded that "taught not to understand"...

Regards fresco.

0 Replies

I will try fresco but I am not good at this.

Speaking only from my own experience - my education at home and at school was meant to give the knowledge to attain certain goals that were acceptable to the community I lived in. Things like good job, money, security, love, happiness, etc. And I did attain most of those goals. But they, jobs, money, security - those were not sufficient to make me happy.

The love and happiness I have experienced were temporary except for the love I received from my mother and daughter; they are both deceased now but I find great comfort in the knowledge that they loved me and allowed me to love them and that love still exists. Money and status have never been important to me although I have tried them out to fit in I lost all of that to and I do not care to much about it except when I am hungry.

Often these past years I have felt like a whole loaf of bread with both ends cut off and my stuff just whooshing out but nothing comes in - and I am just becoming stale bread. So I listen to these discussions with hope of finding some freshness in my old age.

I worked and most of the time enjoyed my job but was driven to become a union activist when my sense of unfairness was aroused. That of course led to much stress but I did learn to have some patience through those experiences. When I look back on those times I see them as being outside of myself most of the time. But I still do not know what that means.

Now I paint and scavenge for stuff to put together in little sculptures (stabiles). This creative activity is the only real me that I know of; the rest is just layers of stuff and I would like to get rid of the layers. I do not know what I am talking about except I seek peace within myself and without. The only time I come close to this is while painting. Being nowhere is what I call it - not aware of the passage of time or other worldly things.

So I follow these threads where you and JLN, CDK, T and others talk about existence or non existence; about reality and what is not. And I want to know more.

0 Replies

Thank you for opening up like that. It is much appreciated because it is a good example of the necessity to lay bare layers of the "self" before being receptive to some of these ideas. (I've called it shedding some of the baggage which for me was the predominance of "the intellect").

You may already be familiar with "The School of Practical Philosophy) which does an acceptable introductory course on some of the main issues but I would add a personal warning about getting too involved because at the "higher echelons" it veers towards cultism. A more open version I have experienced is the Krishnamurti material both locally and within a "retreat" setting.

I would be interested in your further comments if you are familiar with either of these.

0 Replies

BTW Terry,

There is a place for what might best be called "scientific discussion" within the related issue of "perception" as an extension of general biological "structural dynamics", provided that such discussion is about "coherence" rather than "validity". Nobody has taken me up on that.

0 Replies

Fresco I am not familiar with either The School of Practical Philosophy or Krishnamurite. But I have had some bad experiences with people who were trying to guide me into new ways. The reason I did not follow was fear.

I guess that is why in all these many years, about 30, I have stayed away from even discussing this until you asked. I feel pretty safe saying these things with JLN and T here as I know them so well. And trust them so much. And I trust you as well.

My experience with the dark side came in the early 70s when I had just returned from Japan. Zen was all the rage and people were constantly emoting about it. Most of what they said did not fit with what I saw as far as I was concerned so I spoke only to be taken advantage of emotionally to a degree.

This morning I guess I felt bold in the wee hours of this morning, I was up before 4:00 a.m. CST, and I was A2king while running between three paintings I am working on and I finally got one right (almost finished). The thrill of getting one right, one of the paintings, opened me up a little. Or at least gave me some courage to just jump in feet first.

Thank you for being so kind I hope I did not ruin the discussion.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Satori is nondualism experienced. If you reject nondualism you reject satori as a possibility.

Satori is far more inclusive than what you've defined it as. If you define it as an awakening to the validity of nondualism then obviously the rejection of nondualism constitutes a rejection of your definition of Satori.

The problem lies in that through this definition you are defining the experience and understanding as acceptance of nondualism.

Quote:

Quote:
I know twyvel, you use "understanding" as a euphemism for "accepting" the concept.

Fine, put words in my mouth.

twyvel, I have taken special care not to put words in your mouth. I've opined in that I think that your definitions of understanding and experiencing nonsualism are set up in a way that is tantamount to their use as a euphemism for acceptance iof nondualism and I stand by that observation.

Quote:

An intellectual understanding of nondualism is obviously antithetical to dualism.

Only if said "understanding" is defined as accepting the validity of nondualism. This definition precludes, for example, the "understanding" of nondualism that rejects the validity of the concept.

Quote:

Anyone can certainly understand nondualism as the concept it is and reject it as absurd or whatever......

I am saying at some level of understanding and knowing nondualism as a satoric experience (if it can be called an experience) any questions of accepting or rejecting are long past. They are no longer of any significance. (read fresco's last post).

This means this "understanding" is defined as acceptance of nondualism, as you define said "understanding" in a way that nonsualism will not have its validity in question.

Quote:

Quote:
It's not fiction.

You do not know that.

In the intellectual understanding of nondualism as a concept there is the understanding that the ego/body/self is fictitious.

Again, "understanding" is used as a euphemism for acceptance of the precepts of nondualism.

Quote:

This above intellectual understanding of nondualism as a description of the true nature of this so called reality can of course be rejected or accepted, that's obvious, as JLNobody has said.

The validity is rejected, not the understanding. It's convenient to try to equate acceptance with understanding but that's all predicated on the notion that it is a valid concept.

Declaring the acceptance of nondualism as a prerequisite for "understanding" is, in my opinion, disingenuous because it disallows a vetting of the concept without leveling the charge of an inability or rejection of "understanding".

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

JLN, since you, fresco, and twyvel have ruled out any logical discussion of non-dualism and discount the personal experience of "reality" of anyone who has not experienced the non-dual state, there is no place for me in this discussion.

Terry, I often appreciate your contrinutions and this is no exception.

I'm taking this as advice for myself. Any discussion without the prerequisite of acceptance of the validity of nondualism is getting nowehere here.

And it's pointless to discuss the validity of a concept with people who insist on accpetance of said validity as the basis for discussion.

0 Replies

Craven, you say that "The validity is rejected, not the understanding. It's convenient to try to equate acceptance with understanding..." This mantra of yours is boring me to tears. You are clearly hiding behind it. I have seen no evidence in anything you have said that indicates you understand it at all, only that you reject the idea of it (whatever that means to you). And this evidence does not depend on any gesture of acceptance on your part. True, Twyvel and Fresco have reflected their acceptance in utterances that do demonstrate THEIR understanding. But you fuse the two together in order to condemn us for doing so against you. Agh!

0 Replies

Craven,

The rejoinder to the "getting nowhere" argument is that he/she who says there is "no place" for them in this discussion is failing to acknowledge the Wittgenstein aphorism "the limits of my language are the limits of my world". Indeed the very concept of "getting somewhere" precludes a search "within".

If you honestly ask yourself why you embark on these type of discussions and the answer is "point scoring" you are indeed "getting nowhere"...but if the answer is one of genuine enquiry we have pointed a way that has worked for us (and others).
Of course the prerequisite is "self honesty" of which only you may or may not have the capacity to judge.

0 Replies

Joanne,

You might like this on "fear".

<<When the conscious mind is quiet - which means when the conscious mind is attentive - it has no thought, it is empty but aware; then it can observe.

This observation is not analytical or interpretative. This attention has no introspective or analytical quality; the conscious mind merely observes.

Thought is the origin of fear; time gives soil to fear. So one has to understand fear and be free of fear - not the fear of the snake, but the deep down fear which gives sorrow, the fear which prevents affection, the fear which clouds the mind, the fear which creates conflict, the fear which brings about darkness. Most of us live in darkness and die in darkness. If one would really understand that fear, one must understand this whole process of consciousness which is time.>> (Krishnamurti)

0 Replies

JD, I still enjoy reading and learning from these threads, even if I do not actively participate. I have to do something to keep my mind from ossifying. Smile

I would like to be able to experience non-dualism but it seems unlikely that I will ever achieve that state. So I must accept reality as I find it in ordinary pursuits and leave the mysticism to JLN and other born-agains.

What do you paint? In my long-ago attempts at painting, I found myself trying to record every physical detail of the subject. I am impressed by artists who lead the viewer's mind to perceive scenes and evoke moods without any extraneous details.

0 Replies

Fresco, could you expand on what you mean by

Quote:

"perception" as an extension of general biological "structural dynamics", provided that such discussion is about "coherence" rather than "validity".

Are you referring to Penrose and Hameroff's theory of quantum coherence in microtubules (which does not seem to have much basis), or something else?

0 Replies

Terry.

I'm refering to Maturana's "autopoiesis" which is reflective of, but not based on Piagets genetic epistemology. The major reference is Capra "The Web of Life" but my references offered to Craven above included a critique of Maturana by Glazerfeld.

Hammeroff's angle seeks its "coherence" through analogy to "probabalistic coherence" in quantum mechanics. I believe it focuses on "cognition per se, wheras the other references see "cognition" as a particular manifestation of the structural dynamics common to all biological phenomena.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

This mantra of yours is boring me to tears.

JL, I've had to repeat it because of the multiple times that "understanding" has been equated to accepting. It's not something I'm repeating for the sake of it but rather my response to the repeated dissmissal of my disagreement as lacking in understanding.

I too am becoming bored.

Quote:

You are clearly hiding behind it.

Hiding from precisely what?

Quote:

I have seen no evidence in anything you have said that indicates you understand it at all, only that you reject the idea of it (whatever that means to you).

Give an example of what would be acceptable evidence short of accepting the premises of nondualism.

Quote:

And this evidence does not depend on any gesture of acceptance on your part.

Then the example should be easy for you to give.

Quote:

But you fuse the two together in order to condemn us for doing so against you. Agh!

I condemn the insistence on "understanding" having criteria that is, IMO, tantamount to an insistence on acceptance.

I'll spare you my own Aghs.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know